[MtnbikeMike]

Here's a school paper my buddy wrote. I figure I'd post it up to see what you guys thought. The QR ban comes to mind here.

source

Whether the problem is "Johnny got blowed up by a terrorist," or "Johnny's hungry and cant read," Americans today turn to the government for help. A country once built on independence is now beginning to rely on its government for the solution to all our problems.

In nearly all aspects of life, the modern citizen seeks government intervention. We even look to the government to protect us from such things as the weather (look at where the blame for the Hurricane Katrina disaster was placed) and even from our inability to take care of ourselves (social security, medicare etc.).

This trend ignores the fact that humans are capable of rational thought and action, and thus of being responsible for themselves. More dangerous is the political climate that follows this assumption. When the government takes on the role of mother, not only are citizens encouraged to act as children, but those who dare to step out on their own are punished.

A quick perusal of the Los Angeles Times is filled with instances of government intervening in economic affairs, determining who can buy and sell how much of what. Google Inc. cannot buy an online advertising agency without an investigation by the Fair Trade Commission, a regulatory branch of the government (Puzzanghera). On a larger scale, the government seeks to manipulate the economy as a whole by controlling the money supply. The Federal Reserve toys with interest rates and the amount of money in circulation in an attempt to regulate commerce (Brown, p34). Rather than stimulating growth, its actions create erratic market conditions for investors (Read). This is a scary throwback to the days of the great depression when Franklin Roosevelt set the price of gold arbitrarily from day to day, destroying faith in our currency and effectively killing investment in industry (Brown, p47).

To see this trend in full swing, look at nearly any social activist group. No matter what the cause celeb, the answer is the same: the government must do something to fix the problem. Today's activists do not act on their own, instead they demand that others take action.

A prime example is the activist group One. The One Campaign is seeking, just as a myriad of social engineers before them, to eliminate poverty, worldwide. Their ad features an all star cast of celebrities giving their best performances preaching how one person can make a difference, ending with the statement, "we don't want your money, just your voice" (One by One.) The commercial seeks to unite us in a battle of epic proportions, in which we all must play our part to eliminate the age-old enemy of poverty. But the fine print on the organization's website tells a different story.

The One Campaign is not a charity, they are a political lobbyist group. How do they want you participate? By signing the online petition and telling your friends about their site, www.one.org. How does the organization plan to end poverty? By "allocating an additional one percent of the U.S. budget toward providing basic needs like health, education, clean water and food?" (About the One Campaign). The individual participates by telling the government to solve the problem. In words the group claims that each individual can make a difference. In reality, they require no commitment from individuals, but turn to the government.

The trend is not new, but it is becoming more prevalent in this generation. Whenever a problem occurs, we run to the government to fix it. This mentality is rooted in the belief that we, as individuals, are powerless, and that only the government can solve the world's problems. This belief is false since it ignores the fact that can better himself. It is dangerous because it ignores the government's nature as deriving its power from the use of violence.

Many people today hold a false concept of man's abilities. It is possible for an individual to provide for himself, and even his family, and thus live without relying on others to pick up his slack. But since few actually live up to this lofty standard, people forget that it is possible. Since so many are unable to help themselves, we take for granted that this is the natural state of humanity, and rule out the possibility of independence. Following this view, we seek to serve the average by taking from those who have created more. When we do this through charity, money is taken on a voluntary basis, but when we do this through the use of government force, we perpetrate, the greatest evil "the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder" (Bastiat, p12).

A free society is based upon voluntary interaction among its citizens, and thus the use of physical force is banned. Unfortunately, not all men respect this ban, thus necessitating a means of preventing and punishing the initiation of violence, i.e. a government. Government is, "the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control" (Rand, p 128). Government is a negative concept, its purpose is to, "prevent injustice from reigning," it cannot be used to promote anything (Bastiat, p29). When we look to the government to solve our problems for us, we give it power that is better left in the hands of individuals. Such an abdication of individual responsibility will inevitably lead to the demise of our society.

Works Cited

1. About the One Campaign. www.one.org/about
2. Bastiat, Frederic. The Law. 1850, translated by Dean Russel, Copyright 1950
3. Brown, Susan Love. The Incredible Bread Machine. Copyright 1974. World Research Inc.
4. One by One, The One Campaign,

5. Puzzanghera, Jim. FTC to review Google's plan to expand. Los Angeles Times, Tuesday, May 29, 2007
6. Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. Signet, Copyright 1961
7. Read, Mablin. Stocks up slightly ahead of Fed Minutes. Los Angeles Times, Tuesday, May 29, 2007

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

i dont think every bit of bitching and asking for action from the gvmt derives from a "i need a nanny" attitude.

many times you can well argue you are just a disgruntled costumer. after all, you are paying a crapload of money to the gvmt and have every right to ask to get your money´s worth.

 

[skatetokil]

But if you weren't forced by threat of imprisonment to pay it money?

 

[LordOpie]

H I figure I'd post it up to see what you guys thought.

Well, it's rough. I prefer that the thesis be clearly identified. The first paragraph is sloppy.

Spelling and grammar count.

Paragraph transistions are undervalued.

The Katrina reference is absurd and fallacious.

Some of the sources are just too old to be valid. Like the one about economics. 1974? That's pre-Alan Greenspan, so kind of pointless.


I recommend ALL students go to the school's learning labs and get help with writing. It's not as easy as people think and there are tools, resources, and methods that can help, but aren't known.

Overall, I'd give the paper a B+ to a high school kid and B-/C+ to a college kid. (depending on the class)

 

[ohio]

Dynamic sentence structure, no spelling mistakes, and decent efficiency of content are about the nicest thing I can say about it, but it's not bad for a high-school level ideologue.

The argument itself (logic, rigor) is in rough shape but time and experience will sort out a lot of that.

 

[Silver]

Did he cite Ayn Rand?

The only way that should ever show up in a paper is if it is prefaced by, "If I was a crazy loon, like Ayn Rand, I'd think:"

 

[BurlyShirley]

Shortsighted and lame, but at least as coherent as the crap I see from some of my college classmates.

 

[Toshi]

Dynamic sentence structure, no spelling mistakes, and decent efficiency of content are about the nicest thing I can say about it, but it's not bad for a high-school level ideologue.

The argument itself (logic, rigor) is in rough shape but time and experience will sort out a lot of that.

"cause celeb" should be "cause célèbre"

 

[ohio]

"cause celeb" should be "cause célèbre"

F@#$ing Harvard with their fancy "correct spelling and accents." I don't even know how to type an accent aigu or accent grave.

 

[MMike]

F@#$ing Harvard with their fancy "correct spelling and accents." I don't even know how to type an accent aigu or accent grave.

çéêëïî⌂üä

 

[skinny mike]

çéêëïî?üä

shut up canuck....

 

[ohio]

çéêëïî⌂üä

Is that cyrillic or some ****?

 

[MMike]

Is that cyrillic or some ****?

The mystical powers of the ALT key. ooooooooooohhh!!!!

åêèé

 

[LordOpie]

The mystical powers of the ALT key. ooooooooooohhh!!!!

åêèé

like ALT-F4?

 

[sanjuro]

Ask your buddy does he like free long distance on his cellular. If it was not for government anti-trust legislation, we all be paying .10 a minute to Bell Telephone.

I think people who think all the government does is hand out welfare checks and imprison terrorists have no clue what the government does. Look thru the lawbook about the protections and services the government offers.

 

[JRogers]

Aside from a number of errors (eg FTC is Federal Trade Commission, I don't think he used an established citation format and there are a bunch of gender specific terms used), I take issue with a lot of the claims being made.

"In nearly all aspects of life, the modern citizen seeks government intervention."
-Think about what that actually means, taken literally. Doesn't seem so true anymore.

"This trend ignores the fact that humans are capable of rational thought and action, and thus of being responsible for themselves."
-What defines rational thought and since when does rational thought become a requisite for taking care of yourself? Most animals do not have what I would call rational thought, but do a fine job.

Comparing gold pricing to the Fed interest rate controls is ridiculous. The latter is, by nature, not arbitrary. Your friend might want to check out October 24, 1929 to see the benefits of high flying unbridled capitalism. All of this government control must be a big problem since the US economy as a whole hasn't done too badly in recent decades and the stock market sets records regularly. Citing one article from a newspaper without any reference to its actual content is not going to convince me that the Federal Reserve creates erratic market conditions.

"Many people today hold a false concept of man's abilities. It is possible for an individual to provide for himself, and even his family, and thus live without relying on others to pick up his slack. But since few actually live up to this lofty standard, people forget that it is possible. Since so many are unable to help themselves, we take for granted that this is the natural state of humanity, and rule out the possibility of independence."
-So, are people unable to help themselves or not? There seems to be confusion here. Should we not be providing social services because people have the ability to work enough to not need them or because we should oppose the government's seizure of private property for public use? Is "lofty" being used sarcastically? I can barely tell because the claims are unintelligible. Throughout Western history, there has always been an underclass of people stricken with poverty, often not in a position to do much about their situations. Why shouldn't we help these people again?

"Government is a negative concept, its purpose is to, "prevent injustice from reigning," it cannot be used to promote anything (Bastiat, p29)."
-What? What does it even mean that a government cannot be used to promote anything? I can't even fathom how that might be true, particularly in a postmodern world that sees a great number of competing belief systems and radically different forms of government.

So how does an individual make a difference and end poverty or stop wars or whatever else they are "supposed to" be doing?


I could keep going, but I found it mostly poorly researched, unfocused (wow, a whole page on a topic that could fill 10 books...) and full of sweeping statements that are either patently false or left so undefined as to be given that appearance.

 

[SkaredShtles]

Is your buddy Red Rabbit?